scholarly journals Burn Injuries Related to E-Cigarettes Reported to Poison Control Centers in the United States, 2010-2019

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
BAOGUANG WANG ◽  
Sherry T. Liu ◽  
Brian Rostron ◽  
Camille Hayslett
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Care Facilities ◽  
Burn Injuries ◽  
Poison Control ◽  
Poison Control Centers ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
The U.S

Abstract Background United States (U.S.) national data indicate that 2,035 individuals with burn injuries from e-cigarette explosion presented to U.S. hospital emergency departments (EDs) in 2015-2017. This national estimate is valuable for understanding the burden of burn injuries from e-cigarette explosion among individuals who presented to EDs. However, little is known about individuals who experienced e-cigarette-related burns but may not present to EDs or health care facilities. Findings We analyzed data from the National Poison Data System (NPDS) to describe the frequency and characteristics of e-cigarette-related burn cases in the U.S. in 2010-2019. NPDS contains information collected during telephone calls to poison control centers (PCCs) across the U.S., including e-cigarette-related burns and other unintended events. During 2010-2019, 19,306 exposure cases involving e-cigarettes were documented in NPDS. Of those, 69 were burn cases. The number of burn cases increased from one in 2011 to a peak of 26 in 2016, then decreased to three in 2019. The majority of the burn cases occurred among young adults aged 18-24 years (29.0%; n=20) and adults aged 25 years or older (43.5%; n=30). Of the 69 burn cases, 5.8% (n=4) were admitted to a hospital; 65.2% (n=45) were treated, evaluated, and released; 15.9% (n=11) were not referred to a health care facility (HCF); 4.4% (n=3) refused referral or did not arrive at an HCF; and 8.7% (n=6) were lost to follow-up or left against medical advice. Nearly one-third (30.4%; n=21) of the cases had a minor effect (i.e., symptoms were self-limited), 47.8% (n=33) had a moderate effect (symptoms were more pronounced and prolonged than in minor cases, but not life-threatening), and 2.9% (n=2) had a major effect (symptoms were life-threatening). Conclusions Approximately one-fifth of e-cigarette-related burn cases reported to PCCs were not referred to or did not arrive at an HCF. Some burn cases had serious medical outcomes. The burn cases mostly affected young adults and adults aged 25 years or older. The number of burn cases observed in this study represents a small portion of e-cigarette-related burn cases but can serve as a complementary data source to traditional injury surveillance systems.

scholarly journals Burn Injuries Related to E-Cigarettes Reported to Poison Control Centers in the United States, 2010-2019

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
BAOGUANG WANG ◽  
Sherry T. Liu ◽  
Brian Rostron ◽  
Camille Hayslett
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Care Facilities ◽  
Burn Injuries ◽  
Poison Control ◽  
Poison Control Centers ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
The U.S

Abstract Background: United States (U.S.) national data indicate that 2,035 individuals with burn injuries from e-cigarette explosions presented to U.S. hospital emergency departments (EDs) in 2015-2017. This national estimate is valuable for understanding the burden of burn injuries from e-cigarette explosions among individuals who presented to EDs. However, little is known about individuals who experienced e-cigarette-related burns but may not present to EDs or health care facilities.Findings: We analyzed data from the National Poison Data System (NPDS) to describe frequency and characteristics of e-cigarette-related burn cases in the U.S. in 2010-2019. NPDS contains information collected during telephone calls to poison control centers (PCCs) across the U.S., including e-cigarette-related burns and other unintended events. During 2010-2019, 19,306 exposure cases involving e-cigarettes were documented in NPDS. Of those, 69 were burn cases. The number of burn cases increased from one in 2011 to a peak of 26 in 2016, then decreased to three in 2019. The majority of the burn cases occurred among young adults aged 18-24 years (29.0%; n=20) and adults aged 25 years or older (43.5%; n=30); 14.4% occurred among individuals ≤ 17 years old. Of the 69 burn cases, 5.8% (n=4) were admitted to a hospital; 65.2% (n=45) were treated and released; 15.9 % (n=11) were not referred to a health care facility (HCF); 4.4% (n=3) refused referral or did not arrive at an HCF; and 8.7% (n=6) were lost to follow-up or left the HCF against medical advice. Nearly one-third (30.4%; n=21) of the cases had a minor effect (symptoms resolved quickly), 47.8% (n=33) had a moderate effect (symptoms were more pronounced and prolonged than in minor cases, but not life-threatening), and 2.9% (n=2) had a major effect (life-threatening symptoms).Conclusions: Approximately one-fifth of e-cigarette-related burn cases reported to PCCs were not referred to or did not arrive at an HCF. Some burn cases had serious medical outcomes. The burn cases mostly affected young adults and adults aged 25 years or older. The number of burn cases in NPDS represents a small portion of e-cigarette-related burn cases but it can serve as a complementary data source to traditional injury surveillance systems.

Pattern of ziprasidone exposures reported to Texas poison centers, 2001–2005

2008 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 355-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
MB Forrester
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Age Distribution ◽  
Care Facility ◽  
Health Care Facility ◽  
Health Care Facilities ◽  
Poison Control ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Poison Control Centers ◽  
Poison Centers ◽  
The Mean

Information on potentially adverse exposures to the atypical antipsychotic drug ziprasidone is limited. This study described the pattern of exposures involving only ziprasidone (isolated exposures) reported to Texas poison control centers during 2001–2005. The mean dose was 666 mg. The patient age distribution was ≤5 years (11%), 6–19 years (30%), and ≥20 years (60%). The exposures were intentional in 53% of the cases. Seventy-five percent of the exposures were managed at health care facilities. The final medical outcome was classified as no effect for 39% of the cases and minor effects for 40% of the cases. Adverse clinical effects were listed for 53% of the patients; the most frequently reported being neurological (42%), cardiovascular (13%), and gastrointestinal (5%). The most frequently listed treatment was decontamination by charcoal (34%) or cathartic (28%). Potentially adverse ziprasidone exposures reported to poison control centers are likely to involve management at a health care facility and involve some sort of adverse clinical effect. With proper treatment, the outcomes of such exposures are generally favorable.

Intoxication and Flame Burn Injuries in Young Adults in the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 392-397
Author(s):  
Mary A Palilonis ◽  
Siraj Amanullah ◽  
Annie Gjelsvik ◽  
Lauren E Schlichting ◽  
William G Cioffi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
The United States ◽  
Burn Injuries ◽  
Flame Burn

91 Intoxication and Flame Burn Injuries in Young Adults in the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S60-S61
Author(s):  
M A Palilonis ◽  
S Amanullah ◽  
A Gjelsvik ◽  
L Schlichting ◽  
W G Cioffi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
The United States ◽  
Burn Injuries ◽  
Flame Burn

scholarly journals Latina young adults' use of health care during initial months in the United States

2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-359
Author(s):  
Frank R. Dillon ◽  
Melissa M. Ertl ◽  
Dylan A. Corp ◽  
Rosa Babino ◽  
Mario De La Rosa
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
The United States ◽  
Use Of Health Care

A Cross-National Perspective on the American Welfare State

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Lynch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Regulation ◽  
Eligibility Criterion ◽  
Social Risks ◽  
Social Goods ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Welfare State

The welfare system in the United States is not simply “small,”“residualist,” or “laggard.” It is true that protection against standard social risks is generally less comprehensive and less generous in the United States than in other rich democracies, but there are other important differences as well: The U. S. welfare state is unusual in its extensive reliance on private markets to produce public social goods; its geographic variability; its insistence on deservingness as an eligibility criterion; and its orientation toward benefits for the elderly rather than children and working-age adults. Nevertheless, the U.S. welfare state is not sui generis. The actors involved in the construction of the U.S. welfare state, the institutions created in response to social problems, and the contemporary pressures confronting the welfare state all have parallels in other countries. The markets that provide so many social goods in the United States are the products of state action and state regulation, and hence should really be thought of as part of the welfare “state.” Even recent expansions to the welfare state in the United States have, with the partial exception of health-care reform, reinforced old patterns of elderly oriented spending and benefits for worthy (working) adults. In order for the U.S. welfare state to adjust successfully to ensure against new social risks, it must focus more on underdeveloped program areas like health care, child care, early childhood education, and vocational training.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document